Replies

That's a pretty shallow interpretation of this thread. The point of the thread focused on the best strategy for Israel. It is not in Israel's long-term interest to interfere with US-led coalition military activity.

And, no, I do not agree with your statement regarding the right to defense. The question is a moral one. If a nation's leadership is a military dictatorship and is not elected, does that leadership have justification to order "retalliation" hits? I believe that same claim was made by Hitler's troops in the invasion of Poland!

It is easy to say that a nation has the right of self-defense, but it is difficult to implement such international law and it is even more difficult to distinguish what is really a "preemptive strike" vs. "retalliation".

A counterstrike, especially a nuclear one, launched by Israel will not help the Israelies. In the long term, it damages their legitimacy.

I believe that same claim was made by Hitler's troops in the invasion of Poland!

There's a big difference between being attacked and claiming to be attacked, especialy when the claim is based on an incident where your side played both parts.

Poland did not attack Germany though that incident was staged by the SD the "German soldier" who was shot was in fact some guy taken from a concentration camp and put in a Wehrmarct uniform. The Arabs by their savagery have justified any Nazieque methods of reprisal neccasary to deter them from attacks on the civilized world not that the Israelis have ever resorted to these.